Allergenic proteins of natural rubber latex, their production and use in assays

ABSTRACT

This invention relates to allergenic proteins of natural rubber latex in substantially purified form, their production and their use, together with monoclonal antibodies developed against those allergenic proteins, in assays for the qualitative and quantitative determination of the levels of the allergenic proteins in natural rubber latex or in products made from latex. Assays for identifying and/or quantitating antibodies in blood or blood products that mediate the occurrence of an allergic reaction induced by natural rubber latex are also provided, together with in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests for detecting hypersensitivity to natural rubber latex and which involve use of the aforesaid allergenic proteins. The invention also provides for the use of the aforesaid allergens as de-sensitizing agents in the treatment of latex protein allergy. There is still further provided a method for removing allergenic proteins from latex products.

This invention relates to allergenic proteins of natural rubber latex insubstantially purified form, their production and their use, togetherwith monoclonal antibodies developed against those allergenic proteins,in assays for the qualitative and quantitative determination of thelevels of the allergenic proteins in natural rubber latex or in productsmade from latex. Assays for identifying and/or quantitating antibodiesin blood or blood products that mediate the occurrence of an allergicreaction induced by natural rubber latex are also provided, togetherwith in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests for detectinghypersensitivity to natural rubber latex and which involve use of theaforesaid allergenic proteins. The invention also provides for the useof the aforesaid allergens as de-sensitising agents in the treatment oflatex protein allergy. There is still further provided a method forremoving allergenic proteins from latex products.

There now follows a glossary defining certain of the terms usedhereinafter:

Total protein: All protein and fragments thereof present in a sample.

Antigenic proteins: A group within total proteins. These proteins elicitantibody production in the animal and human body. The antibodieselicited might include those of the IgE class which are able to inducean allergic reaction and also those that do not induce allergy.“Antigenic proteins” can also refer to proteins that are recognised by(react with) antibodies.

Allergenic proteins: A group within antigenic proteins (and hence asub-group within total proteins). These proteins elicit production ofthe IgE class of antibodies in the animal or human body. They can inducean allergic reaction where IgE specific to them are present. “Allergenicproteins” can also refer to proteins that are recognised by (react with)IgE.

Allergens: Substances (proteins or otherwise) that elicit production ofthe IgE class of antibodies in the animal or human body. They can inducean allergic reaction where IgE specific to them are present. “Allergens”can also refer to substances that are recognised by (react with) IgE.

With regard to latex protein allergy, the only known allergens areproteinaceous in nature. Hence, in this context, the terms latexallergens, allergens, allergenic proteins and protein allergens aresynonymous.

Antibodies: Immunoglobulins present in the serum of an animal andsynthesised by plasma cells in response to an antigen.

IgE: A group within antibodies. IgE specific for an allergen is elicitedin the animal or human body by its exposure to the allergen. Subsequentexposure to the allergen may induce an allergic reaction.

Polyclonal antibodies: A collection of antibodies against a particularantigen. Since most antigens have a large number of epitopes, there canbe many different antibodies against a given antigen.

Monoclonal antibody: An immunoglobulin (antibody) produced by a singleclone of lymphocytes. A monoclonal antibody recognizes only a singleepitope on an antigen.

Epitope: An antigenic determinant in a molecule which is specificallyrecognised by an antibody combining site or by the antigen receptor of aT-cell.

Hybridoma: A cell line obtained by the fusion of a myeloma cell line,which is able to grow indefinitely in culture, with a normal antibodysecreting B-cell. The resulting cell line has the properties of bothpartners, and continues to secrete the antibody product of the normalB-cell. By selecting a myeloma that has ceased to make its ownimmunoglobulin product, but has retained the machinery for doing so, thehybridoma secretes only the normal B-cell antibody. Since the cell lineis cloned, the antibody is monoclonal.

Allergenic proteins (allergens) can induce an allergic reaction insensitised persons which, in severe cases, can lead to an anaphylacticshock that is potentially lethal. Proteins present in latex products,such as latex gloves, can induce a form of allergy known as “Type Ihypersensitivity” in a small proportion of people who use such products.The use of rubber products, especially dipped latex products, istherefore being viewed with some caution and concern from the healthcareviewpoint.

Natural rubber from the commercial rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensis, isan important commodity in the economies of many Asian and Africancountries. Natural rubber is marketed in the form of bales, sheets andas latex concentrate. A major demand for natural rubber latexconcentrate is in the manufacture of “dipped-latex” products such asgloves for examination, surgical and domestic use. In 1993, Malaysiaalone exported latex dipped goods valued at a total of US$880 million.The global demand for latex examination gloves in particular hasincreased significantly in recent years with the rise in the incidenceof the Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) due to HIV infection.

There have been recent reports that gloves and other surgical aidsmanufactured from natural rubber latex can cause contact urticariawhich, in a few cases, has led to anaphylactic reactions in personspreviously sensitised (Nutter, 1979; Turjanmaa et al., 1984; Axelsson etal., 1987; Leynadier et al., 1989). Anaphylaxis can be life-threateningand is therefore far more serious than the generally mild skinsensitivities caused by the various chemical compounds used in glovemanufacture. While contact dermatitis arising from chemicals has beenrecognized for many years, the allergic response to proteins in latexproducts such as gloves and catheters poses a potentially serious threatto their users. Those most at risk are health care workers, who may wearlatex gloves more or less continuously throughout their working day, andtheir patients. Ultimately, the product manufacturers and the latexindustry as a whole will feel the repercussions from the perceivedthreat, even though the proportion of people that are actually at riskis very small. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) have already indicated that they will require allnatural latex goods to be identified as such in the near future. The USFDA may also soon be setting standards for acceptable levels of totalprotein in latex products. If this problem is not addressed with theurgency it deserves and means established to distinguish between “safe”and “unsafe” products, it is even possible that future legislation couldimpose a blanket ban on the use of all latex products in medical care.

Latex protein allergy has therefore been regarded with increasingconcern in recent years, especially by the manufacturers of latexproducts and by those involved in healthcare. Evidence has pointed towater-extractable proteins in latex as the cause of the latex-inducedanaphylactic reaction which is mediated through an interaction betweenallergenic latex proteins and a class of antibodies (IgE), in thesensitised person. IgE specific immunoassays of protein fractions havesuggested that more than one specific protein may be involved (Turjanmaaet al. 1988; Slater, 1991).

In view of the importance of the latex protein allergy problem, bothfrom the healthcare perspective and from the viewpoint of latex productmanufacturers, active research in this connection is being undertaken invarious laboratories worldwide. The main objectives of theinvestigations are:

(a) To produce a latex concentrate containing lower levels of allergens.Latex concentrate suppliers are seeking to reduce allergens in thesource material used for the manufacture of latex products.

(b) To manufacture a low allergen latex product. Latex productmanufacturers are seeking to reduce allergens in their finishedproducts.

(c) To develop an assay for the quantitation of allergens present inlatex concentrate or in products. Both the latex suppliers as well aslatex product manufacturers require an assay for the purpose ofstandardisation and quality control to complement (a) and (b).

In the conventional preparation of latex concentrate, field latex isstabilised with ammonia (to prevent flocculation or coagulation of therubber) and then concentrated by centrifugation to increase the rubbercontent from about 33% to 60%. Currently, there are two main approachesto the production of a low protein latex concentrate (Subramaniam,1992). Firstly, multiple centrifugations can be carried out with freshammoniated water added in each cycle to dilute out the soluble proteinsin the aqueous phase of the latex. Secondly, the latex can be treatedwith a protein-degrading enzyme (proteinase).

To manufacture latex-dipped products with reduced soluble proteins, thesimplest method is to wash in water. Proteins migrate to the surface ofthe latex film as it dries (Shamsul Bahri et al., 1993) and are hencemost effectively removed when the film is washed after complete drying.

While the above-mentioned measures are aimed at reducing the amount ofallergens in the latex concentrate or in the finished latex product,there is at present no reliable way to assess the level of suchallergens. In the absence of a specific latex allergen assay, samplesare currently tested for total protein on the assumption that low totalprotein levels would be an indication of low allergen levels. This isgenerally true when comparing extreme protein levels (i.e. very highprotein levels are associated with high allergenicity and very lowprotein levels are associated with low allergenicity). However, totalprotein levels can sometimes give a misleading picture as to howpotentially harmful a product can be because not all proteins areallergenic (i.e. able to induce an allergy); many are innocuous. Abetter assay would be one that estimates the level of the latexallergens specifically.

Assays for latex allergens are commercially available and come in anumber of variations, but they are all based on one or moreimmunological reactions of an immunoassay. An immunoassay is based onthe interaction between antibodies with the specific protein antigens towhich the antibodies will bind. Hence, in the case of an immunoassay forlatex allergens, the principal reaction is the binding of latexallergens with the antibodies that recognise such allergens.

Assays based on the immune reaction relating to the latex allergyproblem fall into two categories. In the first category, the assaysquantitate the antibodies (IgE) in a blood sample that mediate theoccurrence of an allergic reaction. Essentially, such assays are forhealthcare and medical use and they serve as diagnostic tests for latexallergy. The second category of immunoassays pertains to thequantitation of latex allergens extractable from latex products.Essentially, such assays are for use in the latex industry to monitorand regulate the levels of latex allergens in latex concentrate and inmanufactured latex products. Presently, there are a small number ofcommercially available immunoassays for both categories of tests.

Commercial immunoassays in RAST (radioallergosorbent test) and ELISA(Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) formats are used to determine ifspecific IgE to the latex proteins is present and, hence, test for latexallergy in patients. Such tests can also be performed as competitiveassays (RAST inhibition, competitive ELISA) to quantitate the amount ofallergen in a latex sample or a latex product.

All these immunoassays require the use of specific latex allergens inthe immunological reaction. Since no latex allergens have so far beenisolated and conclusively identified, the presently available commercialassays use as their allergen source crude (unpurified) latex serum orproteins eluted from commercially manufactured latex gloves.

Crude latex serum is unreliable as a source of allergens, however,because it contains a lot of proteins (and other substances) other thanthe allergens themselves. These impurities might interfere with theprecision of the assay. There is also no information as to the level orconsistency of the allergens in latex obtained from different sources,from different times of the year or latex that has been preserved orstored under different conditions. While the variation in allergenicprotein levels in different batches of latex has not been investigated,latex proteins in general, and latex enzymes (a class of proteins) inparticular, are known to vary with clonal (cultivar) source, season,physiological state of the tree, the intensitiy of tapping (latexharvesting) and the use of chemical stimulants to promote latex yield.For example, differences in latex proteins sourced from differentcommercial clones were discerned after electrophoretic separation(Walujono and Suseno 1973, Yeang et al., 1977, Prematillake and Yapa,1985), indicating that protein composition varied between clones. Thefact that some of these differences could be traced to latex B-serumproteins (Yeang et al., 1977) is significant in view of the fact that,as has now been discovered by the inventors of the present invention,some of the major latex allergens originate from the B-serum. Latexprotein composition could also be influenced by the physiological stateof the tree. Prematillaka et al. (1985) reported the disappearance orreduction of a number of latex proteins collected from trees afflictedwith the physiological disorder known as brown bast.

Differences in the iso-forms of enzymes of latex obtained from variouscommercial Hevea clones have also been demonstrated (Chevallier, 1988).The activities of certain latex enzymes vary significantly with season(Yeang and Paranjothy, 1982). Moreover, latex enzyme activities areknown to change significantly in response to the intensity of latexharvest (Yeang and Paranjothy, 1982a) and to yield stimulation by thechemical ethephon (Tupy, 1969; Chrestin et al., 1985). The level of alatex protein complex known as a microhelix has been reported toincrease in the B-serum as a result of ethephon stimulation (Gomez andMoir, 1979). The microhelix has also been shown to be very variable andsometimes undetected in B-serum. This variation occurs between clonesand also between samples taken at different times from the same group oftrees (Gomez and Moir, 1979; Gomez and Tata, 1977). The last mentionedpoint is significant in view of the finding described below that one ofthe identified latex allergens is a component of the microhelix complex.

As mentioned above, proteins eluted from commercial latex gloves arealso used as the protein antigen component of immunoassays for thediagnosis of latex allergy or for the quantitation of latex allergens. Aserious drawback of this approach is that different brands of gloves (oreven different batches of the same brand) show qualitative andquantitative differences in their allergen composition. As such, testresults from assays that utilise latex glove proteins as antigens canvary considerably depending on the choice of latex gloves from which theantigens were sourced.

Not surprisingly, the commercially available latex allergen assays lacksensitivity and specificity and are only partially successful indetecting allergenicity.

Working with a commercially available latex antigen preparation,(supplied by Stallergenes), Levy (1993) reported that it gave positiveresults in 100% of sensitive patients and negative results innon-sensitive control patients. In another study (Lagier et al., 1992),however, 80% of test patients (nurses) who were known to be allergic tolatex gave negative results with the commercial Stallergenes kit. From astudy of forty allergic patients (diagnosed by skin prick tests),Leynadier, Autegard and Levy (1993) reported 5-16% false negativeresults with Stallergenes latex allergen as well as two other commercialallergens, supplied by Allerbio and Bencard. Hence, false negativeresults occur with the commercial latex allergens currently available.The most widely used RAST kit is probably the latex RAST k82 produced byPharmacia Diagnostics and its enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay(Pharmacia CAP system). Levy (1993) reported that these assays werecapable of detecting IgE antibody in the serum of 40-90% of skin pricktest-positive latex-allergic patients.

Another commercially available immunoassay for latex allergens is the“Latex ELISA for Antigenic Proteins” (LEAP) manufactured by the GuthrieResearch Institute, U.S.A. (Beezehold, 1993). The assay is based on anindirect ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) in which polyclonalantibodies against latex proteins are used. Such an assay might not besufficiently effective in discriminating latex protein antigens ingeneral (i.e. proteins that bind both to the allergy-inducing antibodies(IgE) and the non allergy-inducing antibodies) from the latex allergens(i.e. proteins that bind to IgE specifically). The use of this assayalso assumes that all antigens and allergens bind equally well to theELISA plate under the same conditions since the test samples containingthe antigens/allergens to be determined are required to be bound to theELISA plate by the end-user using a single set of conditions. Thisassumption may be false and therefore antigens and allergens not able tobind well to the plate under the conditions used will not be detectableor at best sub-optimally detectable.

There is therefore a need for an improved latex allergen assay. In orderto produce such an assay antibodies against the individual latexallergens must be developed and be made available. In order to do that,the specific latex allergens must first be identified.

There have been many publications reporting on the occurrence of variouslatex allergenic proteins. Practically all the references to latexallergens characterise the proteins by molecular weight and/oroccasionally by their isoelectric point. Latex allergens characterisedby molecular weight or isoelectric point alone cannot be regarded ashaving been identified because:

(a) Proteins break down during the manufacture of latex products and asingle allergenic protein can hence appear as several proteins of lowermolecular weights in a protein separation procedure such as gelfiltration, HPLC, isoelectric focussing or electrophoresis to determinemolecular weight or isoelectric point.

(b) Proteins may aggregate to form protein complexes that have differentapparent molecular weights and isoelectric points from those ofunaggregated proteins.

and

(c) Several different proteins may have similar characteristics (e.g.molecular weight) and cannot therefore be easily distinguished from oneanother. According to the findings of the inventors of the presentinvention, these difficulties are overcome by:

(i) Isolating specific latex allergenic proteins from natural rubberlatex.

(ii) Developing monoclonal antibodies against those specific allergenicproteins to tag them and identify their break-down protein fragments andsub-units.

According to the present invention, three specific latex allergens havebeen identified. The allergens have been designated Hev b IV, Hev b IIand Hev b III in accordance with the allergen nomenclature systemapproved by the International Union of Immunological Societies andpublished in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (Marsh etal., 1986; Marsh, 1987). The protein Hev b IV was originally designatedHev b I by the present inventors, but has been re-designated Hev b IVbecause Hev b I has previously been assigned by other workers to thelatex protein known as Rubber Elongation Factor found on the surface ofrubber particles. (Czuppon et al).

Monoclonal antibodies have been generated against all three allergensand, significantly, some of these monoclonal antibodies also recognisethe breakdown products or sub-units of the allergens. Assays are alsoprovided according to the present invention and which are based on theinteraction between the aforesaid specific allergenic proteins isolatedfrom natural rubber latex and monoclonal antibodies developed againstthose proteins.

More specifically, the present invention provides an allergenic proteinof natural rubber latex (designated Hev b IV) characterised by being ina substantially purified form and which is oligomeric and consists ofthree major species of monomeric polypeptides with molecular weights 50,55 and 57 kDa that are disulphide-linked into dimers of approximatemolecular weights 100, 110 and 115 kDa, and allergenic sub-units oraggregates thereof.

The invention further provides a second allergenic protein of naturalrubber latex (designated Hev b II) characterised by being in asubstantially purified form and which is composed of two polypeptideclaims of molecular weights 34/35 kDa and 36/37 kDa, and allergenicsub-units or aggregates thereof.

The invention still further provides a third allergenic protein ofnatural rubber latex (designated Hev b III) characterised by being in asubstantially purified form and which has a molecular weight of 24 kDa,and allergenic sub-units or aggregates thereof.

In another aspect, the invention provides monoclonal antibodiesdeveloped against the aforesaid allergens Hev b IV, Hev b II and Hev bIII.

The invention further provides a method for the production of theaforesaid allergenic proteins Hev b IV, Hev b II and Hev b III.

In a still further aspect the invention provides assays for thequalitative and quantitative determination of the levels of allergens ofnatural rubber latex which are based on the interactions betweenspecific protein allergens isolated from natural rubber latex or othertissue of the rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis and monoclonal antibodiesdeveloped against those allergens. The allergens being assayed may bepresent in the latex intended for use in the manufacture of latexproducts or they may be present in manufactured latex products. Theassays can also be used to quantitate allergenic latex proteins inproducts made from dry rubber.

The invention further provides for the application of some or all of thesame antibody-allergen interactions to identify and/or quantitateantibodies that mediate the occurrence of an allergic reaction inducedby natural rubber latex. Such antibodies belonging to the class ofantibodies known as IgE are normally found in blood or blood products.

In yet another embodiment of the invention, latex allergenic proteinsand/or monoclonal antibodies against such proteins and/or a mixturethereof are labelled, for example with biotin, in order that theirpresence can be detected when they are used in an assay.

The invention provides also for the use of the aforesaid allergens Hev bIV, Hev b II and Hev b III, in in vivo or in vitro (ex vivo) diagnostictests for the determination of Type I hypersensitivity to natural rubberlatex (for example, the skin prick test or the histamine release test).

The invention also provides for the use of the aforesaid allergens, Hevb IV, Hev b II and Hev b III, as de-sensitising agents in the treatmentof latex protein allergy.

Another embodiment of the invention provides for the leaching or washingof a latex product in a solution of salt (e.g. sodium chloride) or othersolution with ionic strength greater than that of water to selectivelyremove latex allergens known to be soluble in solutions of ionicstrength higher than that of water.

The inventors believe that they are the first to establish clearly theidentities and properties of the three latex proteins, the first toreport a reproducible method for their purification in large quantitiesfrom fresh latex and the first to demonstrate the allergenic nature ofthese proteins and to propose their use in assays. They have alsodeveloped monoclonal antibodies against these proteins. It is believedthat Hev b II was completely unknown before the present invention. Whilethe existence of Hev b III and Hev b IV had already been suggested, theywere identified only to the level of their molecular weight orisoelectric point. Theoretically, proteins can be extracted from latexon the basis of their molecular weight even without knowing whichcomponent of latex the proteins originate from and without any otherinformation. In practice, however, it is not easy to extract and purifyspecific proteins based on molecular weight alone with any reasonableassurance of the absence of contamination by proteins with similarcharacteristics (i.e. molecular weight) that co-purify with the desiredallergenic proteins. As will be appreciated, this would make itdifficult to aliquot out the precise quantities of pure allergens thatwould be required for quantitative immunological assays.

Results from experiments carried out suggest that the three specificallergenic proteins identified by the present inventors, designated Hevb IV, Hev b II and Hev b III, and their breakdown products or sub-units,account for a very large proportion of the latex protein allergens thathave previously been reported.

Monoclonal antibodies are very specific for the particular allergens andantigenic sites (epitopes) that they recognise. Using an appropriatemonoclonal antibody that recognises an epitopic site that is present inthe breakdown fragments and sub-units of the parental allergen, theidentities of such fragments and sub-units can be elucidated.

Besides their importance in identifying protein allergens and theirbreakdown fragments and sub-units, the monoclonal antibodies are alsoimportant for the purpose of developing commercial allergen assays inthat (as compared with polyclonal antibodies) they lend themselves tosustained production in a consistent form and on the scale required forcommercialisation.

Yet a further advantage of monoclonal antibodies is that they can beincorporated into a system of protein purification known as “affinitychromatography”. Using such a system, the allergens that the monoclonalantibodies recognise can be isolated and purified in relatively largequantities, sufficient for their use in one variation of the allergenassay, known as a “competitive binding assay”, in which both theantibodies and antigens are required. Pure allergens may also be used inimmunological assays to quantitate the latex-induced antibodies (IgE) ina blood sample, or for use in skin prick tests for diagnostic purposes.

According to the present invention, selected monoclonal antibodiesdeveloped against the allergens Hev b IV, Hev b II and/or Hev b III areused in the development of immunoassays for the quantitation ofallergens or the quantitation of latex specific IgE. Three monoclonalantibodies that recognise the latex allergens Hev b II, Hev b III andHev b IV are USM/RB4, USM/RC2 and USM/RB3 respectively.

Immunoassays that incorporate the use of specific allergens are superiorto immunoassays where the allergens are contained in unfractionatedlatex serum. In the latter, the exact allergen level in the serum isunknown while the consistency of the allergen in latex sera fromdifferent sources is also uncertain.

Further, immunoassays that incorporate the use of monoclonal antibodiesspecific for allergens are superior to those using polyclonal antibodiesin immunoassays where whole latex sera, allergen-enriched orsemi-purified antigen preparations are used instead of purified specificallergens.

Examples of immunoassays which form part of this invention are:

(a) A competitive binding assay in which the test sample is used toinhibit binding of labelled specific allergens to a solid phase bearingeither a monoclonal antibody or antibodies, or a polyclonal antiserum orantibodies.

(b) A two-site assay in which polyclonal antibodies bound to a solidphase are used to “capture” specific allergen(s) and the presence of thecaptured allergen detected by a monoclonal antibody which may or may notbe labelled directly.

(c) A two site-assay in which monoclonal antibodies bound to a solidphase are used to “capture” specific allergen(s) and the presence of thecaptured allergen detected by a polyclonal antibody which may or may notbe labelled directly.

(d) A two-site assay in which monoclonal antibodies bound to a solidphase are used to “capture” specific allergen(s) and the-presence of thecaptured allergen detected by other monoclonal antibodies which may ormay not be labelled directly.

(e) Any form of immunoassay in which the specific allergens Hev b IV,Hev b II and Hev b III are used bound or in solution as in nephelometry,radioallergosorbant assays (RAST) or RAST inhibition assays.

The various aspects of the present invention will now be described inmore detail and with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1: Sequential fractions obtained by Sephadex G-150 gel filtrationof C-serum. The major peaks, A, B and C are indicated. Peak A representsthe void volume that contains mainly small rubber particles (approx. 45nm diameter) and large proteins greater than 300,000 kDa molecularweight.

FIG. 2: Immuno-gold detection of Hev b III on the surface of smallrubber particles fractionated from the C-serum. Gold particlesconjugated to goat anti-mouse IgG indicate the presence of themonoclonal antibody USM/RC2 which binds specifically to Hev b III.

FIG. 3: Preparative gel electrophoretic analysis of Hev b III. Westernblot of sequential fractions of a mixture of B-serum and C-serum from apreparative electrophoretic cell. The protein fractions were subjectedto SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (15% gel) and stained withCoomassie Blue (Panel A), incubated with the monoclonal antibody USM/RC2(Panel B) and incubated with patient plasma and tested for bound IgE.(CS=C-serum).

FIG. 3.1: Western blot of proteins extracted from the rubber cream ofcentrifuged latex and incubated with blood serum from latex-allergicadult patient (left) and from latex-allergic spina bifida patients(right). SDS-PAGE (15% gel). The Hev b III band is indicated by an arrow

FIG. 4: Two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of a mixtureof B-serum and C-serum in the ratio 2:5. Isoelectric focussing was usedin the first dimension and SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis wasused in the second dimension. The gel was electro-blotted on tonitrocellulose membrane and incubated with the monoclonal antibodyUSM/RC2. A range of latex proteins (mainly of estimated pI 4.4 to 4.46and with molecular weights of about 14 to 24 KDa) binds with USM/RC2.

FIG. 5: Sequential protein fractions obtained by Sephacryl S200 gelfiltration of the precipitate obtained from dialysed B-serum. Theprecipitate was re-dissolved in 0.35M sodium chloride solution beforegel filtration. The main fractions A to F are indicated.

FIG. 6: Electrophoretic separation (15% gel) of proteins obtained fromSephacryl S200 gel filtration. Lane 1: Peaks E and F combined; Lane 2:Peaks A and B combined; Lane 3: Molecular weight markers. Panel A: Gelstained with Coomassie Blue. Panel B: Western blot of gel incubated withplasma for a patient allergic to latex.

FIG. 7: Purification of Hev b IV by gel filtration chromatography. Theproteins in the various peaks were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gelelectrophoresis (15% gel). The gel was stained in Coomassie Blue (a). Amatching Western blot was probed with homotypic antiserum against Hev bIV (b and c). The test samples were reduced and heated (b) or unreducedand unheated (c). (M=Molecular weight markers, BS=B-serum).

FIG. 8: Western blots of latex proteins probed with homotypic antiserumto allergen Hev b IV (A) and the monoclonal antibody (USM/RB3) to Hev bIV. Lane 1: B-serum, Lane 2: B-serum+C-serum. Lane 3: C-serum. Allsamples were run under non-reducing conditions without heat.

FIG. 9: Purification of Hev b II by gel filtration chromatography. Theproteins in the various peaks were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gelelectrophoresis (15% gel). The gel was stained in Coomassie Blue (a). Amatching Western blot was probed with the monoclonal antibody USM/RB4(b). (M=Molecular weight markers, BS=B-serum).

FIG. 10: Panel a: Preparative gel electrophoretic analysis of allergenHev b IV. B-serum was separated under non-reducing and non-denaturingconditions using a 7.5% gel. Incubated with the monoclonal antibodyUSM/RB3.

Panel b: Western blots of purified Hev b IV. Incubated with themonoclonal antibody USM/RB3 (top) with plasma of a patient allergic tolatex (bottom). SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was run on a 12%gel.

Panel c: Western blots of purified Hev b II. Incubated with plasma of apatient allergic to latex (top) and with the monoclonal antibody USM/RB4(bottom). SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was run on a 12% gel.

FIG. 11: Immuno-gold detection of Hev b IV on the microhelices (shownoccurring in bundles) prepared from B-serum. Gold particles conjugatedto goat anti-mouse IgG indicate the presence of the monoclonal antibodyUSM/RB3 which binds specifically to Hev b IV.

FIG. 12: Recognition of microhelices by IgE from blood plasma of apatient allergic to Hev b IV (but not to Hev b II) from natural rubberlatex. Microhelices were incubated with blood plasma and then with amonoclonal anti-human IgE antibody. Labelling was subsequently carriedout with goat anti-mouse antibody conjugated to 10 nm colloidal gold.

FIG. 13: Immuno-gold detection of polyclonal antibodies against latexglove proteins. The antibodies were raised in rabbits. Gold particlesconjugated to goat anti-rabbit IgG indicate the presence of immunogenicpolypeptides on the microhelices (shown occuring in bundles) preparedfrom B-serum.

FIG. 14: SDS-PAGE (15% gel) separation of B-serum subjected to differenttreatments. A corresponding Western blot was probed with polyclonalhomotypic antiserum against Hev b IV (B).

Prior to electrophoretic separation, the B-serum samples were reducedand heated (Lane 1), reduced and unheated (Lane 2), unreduced and heated(Lane 3) and unreduced and unheated (Lane 4). The gels were stained inCoomassie Blue.

M=Molecular weight markers

FIG. 15: SDS-PAGE (10% gel) of fractionated proteins (Fractions A to Fas described in the text) derived from the precipitation of B-serum bydialysis. Prior to electrophoretic separation, the samples were reducedand heated (top panel) and unreduced and heated (bottom panel). The gelswere stained in Coomassie Blue.

M=Molecular weight markers; BS=B-serum.

FIG. 16:Western blot strips of Hev b II probed with the monoclonalantibody USM/RB3 (Lane 14), USM/RB4 (Lane 15) and IgE from allergenicpatients (Lanes 1 to 13).

FIG. 17: Western blots of electrophoretic separation (15% gel) ofprotein eluates from six brands of gloves (labelled 4-9). Polyacrylamidegel electrophoresis was carried out under reducing and denaturingconditions. The blotted nitrocellulose membrane was incubated withhomotypic antiserum to the allergen Hev b IV (Blot A) and with themonoclonal antibody USM/RB4 which is specific for the allergen Hev b II(Blot B).

Mouse antiserum directed against B-serum was produced by immunisingBalb/c strain mice with 0.5 ml B-serum intraperitoneally, followed by asecond dose three weeks later. The mice were bled by cardiac puncturetwo weeks after the second dose and the serum separated was storedfrozen in aliquots. The serum was found to be homotypic for the proteinHev b IV by Western blot analysis.

Monoclonal antibodies against latex proteins were than generated. Spleencells from Balb/c mice immunised with latex proteins from the rubbertree Hevea brasiliensis were fused with mouse myeloma cells followingprotocols previously described by Kohler and Milstein (1975, 1976). Theresulting hybridoma cells were screened for antibodies specific to latexproteins using several immunoassays. Selected hybridomas were reclonedtwice and monoclonal antibodies secreted were used either in unpurifiedform in hybridoma cell supernatants or as preparations purified byaffinity chromatography. Samples of the hybridoma cell lines thatsecrete the monoclonal antibodies USM/RB4, USM/RC2 and USM/RB3 whichrecognise the latex allergens Hev b II, Hev b III and Hev b IVrespectively have been deposited at the European Collection of AnimalCell Cultures, Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research, Salisbury,Wiltshire, United Kingdom, in its capacity as an InternationalDepository Authority. The cell line for USM/RB4 has been assigned theaccession number 94120727 deposited on Dec. 7, 1994. The cell lines forUSM/RB3 and USM/RC2 have been assigned the following provisionalaccession numbers:

Accession No. Deposit Date USM/RB3 94120726 7 December 1994 USM/RC294120728 7 December 1994

Proteins were next extracted from latex of the rubber tree, Heveabrasiliensis, and specific allergens identified. Monoclonal andhomotypic antibodies against these proteins were used to identifyparticular proteins and their molecular weights determined. Allergenicproteins were identified by determining those proteins which arerecognised by IgE antibodies in the blood plasma obtained from patientsknown to be allergic to latex. The allergens identified in this mannerwere cross matched with proteins identified by monoclonal and homotypicantibodies.

The allergens identified were then purified by several conventionalmethods and the identity of the proteins purified confirmed by taggingwith monoclonal and homotypic antibodies. The isoelectric points (pI) ofthe purified allergens were determined using the LKB Multiphor Model2117 electrofocusing apparatus equipped with precast Ampholine PAG-plateof pH range 3.5 to 9.5 following the manufacturer's instructions(Pharmacia LKB, Sweden). About 15 μl of test sample concentrated in 1%glycine was applied to the polyacrylamide gel. The fractionation andpurification of the three latex allergens, designated Hev b IV, Hev b IIand Hev b III, is now described.

Upon high speed centrifugation, latex separates into three mainfractions: the rubber cream at the top, the “bottom fraction” and theC-serum in between. Hev b III is located on the surface of the smallrubber particles (average size about 100 nm diameter). Many of theseparticles, particularly those smaller than average size, do not separateout with the rubber cream during centrifugation and so remain in theC-serum.

As C-serum is the aqueous phase of latex that is obtained when latex iscentrifuged, C-serum proteins are generally water-soluble. Nevertheless,C-serum is by no means a homogenous fluid, but contains small quantitiesof mainly minute insoluble materials that are not separated by the latexcentrifugation process. Forming the bulk of these insoluble materialsare very small rubber particles, their presence having been confirmed byelectron microscopy. As Hev b III is found on the surface of these smallrubber particles that are suspended in C-serum, it is technically aC-serum protein. It is, however, not one of the soluble proteins thatare normally associated with C-serum. Hev b III can be solubilised bydetergents and is partly solubilised by ammonia.

To extract Hev b III, latex was collected from the tapped rubber tree ina chilled container. The latex was centrifuged in a Sorvall RC 5C highspeed centrifuge at 19,000 r.p.m. (43,000 g) for 2 hours and the smallrubber particles, which are located in “Zone 2” of centrifuged latex(Moir, 1959) were recovered from the centrifuge tube. The Zone 2 rubbercream is re-suspended in a solution of 30% sucrose to wash awaycontaminating C-serum and the suspension was then re-centrifuged. Therubber cream was treated with a mixture of 0.01% Triton X-100 and 1%sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) to extract the membrane proteins.

The Zone 2 rubber extract was subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gelelectrophoresis (SDS PAGE) to determine its molecular weight. There aretwo main proteins in the Zone 2 rubber extract electropherogramdetectable by Coomassie Blue staining: a small amount of protein ofapproximately 14 kDa and a larger amount of protein of 24 kDa which isHev b III. Notwithstanding the apparent molecular weight of 24 kDa forHev b III as determined by standard molecular weight markers inconjunction with SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, massspectrometry of the protein shows various species of molecular weights,22.258, 22.533, 22.790 and 23.058 kDa. The value of 24 kDa willnevertheless be used in subsequent references to the molecular weight ofHev b III in this document. Tryptic digestion of Hev b III revealed thefollowing internal amino acid sequences:

(SEQ ID NO:1) Val Ser Ser Tyr Leu Pro Leu Leu Pro Thr Glu Lys1               5                   10

(SEQ ID NO:2) Gly Asp Leu Ser Thr Val Ser Arg Leu Lys1               5                   10

Ile Val Leu Asp Val Ala Ser Ser Val Phe Asn Thr Arg Lys Gln Glu (SEQ IDNO:3) 1               5                   10                  15 Lys GlnLys

(SEQ ID NO:4) Val Thr Pro Val Tyr Tyr Leu Gly Thr Pro Thr Val1               5                   10

A monoclonal antibody, USM/RC2, has been developed which recognises(reacts specifically with) Hev b III and polypeptide fragments derivedfrom degradation of Hev b III.

Alternatively, Hev b III can be prepared by passing C-serum through aSephadex G-150 chromatography column (2.6 cm×81 cm) with 0.25M Tris-HClof pH 8.0 as the eluting buffer. The fractionation of C-serum isfollowed by monitoring the absorbance of the eluted fractions at 280 nm.The first major peak that is eluted represents the void volume of thecolumn and contains considerable quantities of small rubber particles(Peak A, FIG. 1). This fraction is dialysed, concentrated byfreeze-drying and extracted with a mixture of 0.01% Triton X-100 and 1%sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS).

The immuno-gold labelling technique was used to demonstrate that theprotein which USM/RC2 recognises is on the surface of small rubberparticles suspended in C-serum. Small rubber particles (about 45 nmdiameter) obtained from the void volume of gel-filtered C-serum werefixed briefly in osmium tetroxide and deposited on to formvar-carboncoated nickel grids. The grids were first blocked for 30 minutes withphosphate buffered saline, pH 7.2 containing 1% bovine serum albumin(PBS-BSA) and incubation was carried out with USM/RC2 for 15 minutes.After rinsing, incubation was carried out for a further 15 minutes with5 nm goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin (IgG) gold conjugate, contrastedwith negative stain 2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 6.8). Upon examinationunder the electron microscope, gold particles were observed on thesurface of the small rubber particles (FIG. 2), indicating that thepolypeptide that USM/RC2 recognises (Hev b III) is on the surface of thesmall rubber particles which are suspended in C-serum.

The parental allergen, Hev b III, is susceptible to degradation intosmaller polypeptide fragments. This degradation is enhanced by thepresence of “B-serum” which is the liquid phase extracted from thebottom fraction (see below for description of the method to prepareB-serum).

When C-serum and B-serum are mixed together in the ratio 5:2, theprotein bands from the Western blots of incubated with the monoclonalantibody USM/RC2 are not derived from B-serum since they are not pickedup by USM/RC2 in the absence of C-serum. Additionally, in the Sephadexcolumn filtration of C-serum (see above), the early-eluted fractions(the void volume containing rubber particles) react strongly withUSM/RC2 (Peak A, FIG. 1). On the other hand, the medium and late-elutedfractions (where soluble proteins are expected to be found) have muchlower reaction with the monoclonal USM/RC2, indicating much less of Hevb III in these fractions (Peaks B and C, FIG. 1). These observations areconsistent with the proposition that Hev b III is associated with thesmall rubber particles found in the early eluted fractions.

The array of polypeptides derived from Hev b III can be distinctly seenafter separating C-serum proteins which have been treated with B-serumusing preparative SDS PAGE whereby fractions containing the polypeptidecomponents are recovered. The sequential fractions were subjected to SDSPAGE followed by transfer of the proteins on to a nitrocellulosemembrane (Western blotting). The membrane was then incubated with themonoclonal antibody USM/RC2 and detection of this binding was achievedby using a secondary antibody conjugated with an enzyme (horseradishperoxidase) which on reaction with its substrate in the presence of4-chloro-1-naphthol generates a coloured product.

In a variation of the above procedures to test for the presence ofprotein bands binding to monoclonal or homotypic antibodies, thenitrocellulose membrane was incubated in a solution containing serum orplasma of patients allergic to latex. Patients' IgE bound to proteinsimmobilised in the membrane can then be detected by using an enzymeconjugated secondary antibody with specificity for the epsilon heavychain of human IgE. Bound antibody can then be visualised as describedabove using a colorigenic substrate. The Westerblots indicate that manybreakdown products of Hev b III, ranging from about molecular weights 5kDa to 24 kDa are recognised by the monoclonal antibody USM/RC2 (FIG. 3,panels A and B). Proteins of molecular weight greater than 24 kDa arealso observed, suggesting the possible occurrence of proteinaggregation. The binding of USM/RC2 to the various polypeptides showunequivocally that they are of common origin from Hev b III. Of theproteins derived from Hev b III, at least one, of molecular weight 12kDa, is allergenic by virtue of its binding with IgE from latex allergicpatients (FIG. 3, panel C). A Western blot of Hev b III prepared fromthe rubber cream of centrifuged fresh Hevea latex was incubated withserum pooled from latex IgE-positive spina bifida patients. Binding ofIgE to Hev b III indicated that the spina bifida patients wereparticularly allergic to this protein (FIG. 3.1).

The monoclonal antibody Hev b III was further characterised bytwo-dimensional (2-D) polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of a mixture ofB-serum and C-serum mixed in the ratio of 2:5. Isoelectric focussing wasused in the first dimension and SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresiswas used in the second dimension. Silver staining reveals a number ofproteins of different isoelectric points (pI) and molecular weights. Amatching 2-D gel was electro-blotted on to a nitrocellulose membrane(Western blot) which was then incubated with the monoclonal antibody toHev b III. The latex proteins binding to the antibody are revealed by anenzymic reaction using a secondary enzyme-conjugated antibody. Thepolypeptides that are bound specifically to Hev b III are found to bemainly of the molecular weights ranging 14 to 24 kD with pI from aboutas shown in FIG. 4. The spacial distribution of these polypeptides onthe Western blot are very similar to that for latex proteins to whichpatients suffering from spina bifida are allergic (Alenius, 1994).

To extract Hev b IV and Hev b II, latex was collected and centrifuged asdescribed above. The bottom fraction was recovered from the centrifugedlatex and B-serum was prepared by alternate freezing and thawing cyclesto rupture the lutoids which are the main constituents of the bottomfraction (Hsia, 1958). The serum (B-serum) that is released from theruptured lutoids was recovered by further centrifugation. B-serum inaliquots of 10 ml was dialysed against 2 liters of distilled water atapproximately 5° C. The resulting precipitate, which was recovered bycentrifugation at 20,000 g for 30 minutes, is re-dissolved in 10 ml of0.35 M sodium chloride; the solution was kept in an ice water baththroughout this operation.

An alternative method to extract Hev b IV and Hev b II is to mix B-serumand C-serum in the ratio 2:5 and to allow precipitation of the allergensfor 15 minutes to overnight at room temperature. The resultingprecipitate is collected by centrifugation and is redissolved in 0.35 Msodium chloride or phosphate buffered saline.

The crude extract of Hev b IV and Hev b II was chromatographed on acolumn (70×1.6 cm) of Sephacryl S-200 equilibrated with 0.35 M sodiumchloride and elution was carried out in the same solvent. Fractions of 5ml were collected while optical densities of each fraction at 280 nmwere measured. Several such column chromatography runs are made torecover substantial quantities of the components eluted from the column.

Fractions from six peaks, A to F, were recovered by the columnchromatography described (FIG. 5). These fractions were tested by enzymeimmunoassay to determine the presence of proteins recognised by a panelof monoclonal antibodies as well as for ability to bind IgE from latexallergic patients. These data are shown in Table I. A component orcomponents of peaks A and B are recognised by 11 of 13 (84.6%) latexallergic patients while 4 of 13 (30.8%) recognise a component orcomponents of peaks E and F.

TABLE I BINDING OF PROTEINS IN FRACTIONS A TO F OBTAINED BY GEL COLUMNCHROMATOGRAPHY TO IgE IN PLASMA SAMPLES (a-m) AND TO MONOCLONALANTIBODIES USM/RB3 AND USM/RB4 (n and o). Antibody/antibody source A B CD E F a. 9706 ++ ++ + + b. 1012 ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ c. OB1 ++ ++ + + d.A190 ++++ ++++ +++ +++ e. 9586 ++ ++ ++ ++ f. 3510-28 ++ ++ g. ASP + +h. 4414 i. 4398 ++ ++ +++ +++ j. 4376 ++ ++ k. 4265 ++ ++ l. 4396 m.4393 +++ ++ + + n. USM/RB3 ++++ ++++ + W + + o. USM/RB4 + + W W ++++++++ ++++ = Strong protein-antibody binding + = Weak protein-antibodybinding W = Very weak protein-antibody binding

Positive binding between protein and antibody was detected by an enzyme(peroxidase) reaction mediated by an enzyme-conjugated antibody againsthuman IgE (for the patient plasma samples) and a secondary antibodyagainst mouse immunoglobulin (for the monoclonal antibodies). Themonoclonal antibodies USM/RB3 and USM/RB4 distinguish between thecomponents of peaks A and B and peaks E and F (Table I).

Proteins in Peaks A to F were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gelelectrophoresis where the sample was reduced with the addition ofmercaptoethanol and heated. The main protein bands that were observedafter Coomassie Blue-staining are a major band of 50-57 kDa and minorbands of 65, 22 and 18 kDa from Peaks A and B and 36/37, 34/35 kDa fromPeaks E and F (FIG. 6, Panel A). The 34/35 kDa protein was moreprominent than the 36/37 kDa protein in Peak F, but they were generallyfound in similar amounts in Peak E. A matching gel was electro-blottedand then incubated with blood plasma known to contain latex-specificIgE. The proteins that are observed to be allergenic are those ofmolecular weights 48-58 kDa, 22 kDa and 65 kDa from Peaks A and B and34/35 and 36/37 from Peaks E and F (FIG. 6, panel B).

Peaks A and B contain a high molecular weight protein when run undernon-reducing conditions (FIG. 7, panel a) which is formed ofdisulphide-linked monomers of molecular weight ranging from 48 to 58 kDaconsisting of 3 major species of polypeptide chains with apparentmolecular weights 50, 55 and 57 kDa. These sub-units are all readilyrecognised by the homotypic antibody against Hev b IV (FIG. 7, panel b).However, when the acrylamide gel run under non-reducing conditions iselectrophoretically transferred to nitrocellulose, it can be shown thatthis same homotypic antibody against Hev b IV now recognises a range ofsmaller polypeptides with approximate molecular weights of 29 kDa, 32kDa, 40 kDa, 50 kDa and 75-80 kDa. These polypeptides are alsorecognised by 10 other monoclonal antibodies (an example of which isUSM/RB3) derived from different hybridoma clones, an example of onewhich is shown in FIG. 8.

β1,3 glucanase activity was detected in Peaks E and F by colorimetry.Samples from Peaks E and F were incubated with laminarin (1 mg ml⁻¹ in50 mM sodium acetate buffer, pH 5.2). The release of reducing sugarsindicated the presence of β1,3 glucanase activity. Peaks E and F containthe allergen Hev b II which exists as two polypeptide chains ofmolecular weights 34/35 and 36/37 kDa which are not linked by interchaindisulphide bonds thus emerging from the gel filtration column atslightly different times. Both these polypeptides are recognised by twomonoclonal antibodies, one of which is USM/RB4 (FIG. 9).

In a further characterisation of the allergenic proteins, B-serum wassubjected to preparative gel electrophoresis where the sample was notreduced and not heated and sequential fractions collected as theproteins migrated through a 7.5% polyacrylamide gel. The content ofthese fractions were identified by using the monoclonal and homotypicantibodies described and both Hev b IV and Hev b II are recoverable inthis manner. Hev b IV is recoverable as a high molecular weight proteinunder these conditions and is clearly separated into three major specieswhich have apparent molecular weights of 100, 110 and 115 kDarespectively and these can be seen in lanes 2, 5 and 9 of FIG. 10a. Whenthese fractions were subjected to SDS PAGE under reducing and denaturingconditions and transfered to nitrocellulose the resulting Western blotsprobed with homotypic antiserum to Hev b IV show a broad band withmolecular weight range 48-58 kDa as previously described (see FIG. 7)thus proving that the single bands separated by preparative gelelectrophoresis under the conditions described above represent a proteinin peaks A and B which are recoverable by gel filtration. That thisprotein is also a human allergen is shown in FIG. 10b where the toppanel represents a Western blot of the three fractions of Hev b IVrecovered by preparative gel electrophoresis and the bottom panel showsIgE from latex allergic patients binding to the same three bands.Further evidence that this allergen Hev b IV contains 3 major species isshown by capillary electrophoresis (Beckman Instruments) on thesesamples which show 3 peaks. The same analysis shows that there are noother peaks observed in these samples, providing definitive evidencethat the inventors have purified Hev b IV in its 3 major forms and thatall these forms are recognised by IgE from latex allergic patients.

Being precipitated by dialysis and re-soluble in sodium chloride, Hev bIV and Hev b II behave similarly to a latex B-serum protein complexknown as the microhelix (plural, microhelices). The microhelix is aglycoprotein complex of a filamentous helical structure that has beenobserved under the electron microscope and has been characterised insome detail previously (Archer et al., 1963; Gomez and Yip, 1975; Gomezand Tata, 1977; Tata and Gomez, 1980). As summarised by Gomez and Moir(1979), microhelices prepared from dialysed B-serum are 1 μm or more inlength with a diameter of 20 nm, the fibre width is approximately 5 nmand the pitch of the helix, which is open and hollow, is about 30 nm.Individual microhelices are often associated into bundles (FIG. 11). Athigh resolution under the electron microscope, microhelices are seen-tohave a beaded structure consisting of spherical particles 3-3.5 nm indiameter, arranged in a helical manner with three to four particles perturn.

The technique of immuno-gold labelling was used to determine if eitheror both the proteins, Hev b IV or Hev b II, are components of themicrohelix complex. Microhelices were prepared by dialysis of B-serumand were deposited on to formvar-carbon coated nickel grids. The gridswere first blocked for 30 minutes with phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.2containing 1% bovine serum albumin (PBS-BSA). Incubation for 15 minuteswas carried out separately with the monoclonal antibodies USM/RB3 (whichbinds specifically with Hev b IV) and USM/RB4 (which binds specificallywith Hev b II). These monoclonal antibodies serve as the primaryantibodies in the immuno-reactions. After rinsing, the monoclonalantibodies that had successfully bound to the microhelices were detectedby 15 minutes incubation with 10 nm goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin (IgG)gold conjugate (the secondary antibody), contrasted with negative stain2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 6.8) and examining under the electronmicroscope. As shown in FIG. 11, gold particles are concentrated on themicrohelices that have been incubated with USM/RB3, indicating that thepolypeptide that it recognises (Hev b IV) is a component of themicrohelix complex. On the other hand, there is no association of goldparticles with microhelices that have been incubated with USM/RB4,suggesting that Hev b II is probably not a component of the microhelixcomplex.

To further demonstrate that the microhelix is an allergen, the aboveimmuno-gold labelling procedures were repeated, but with blood plasmafrom an allergic patient sensitive to Hev b IV but not to Hev b II usedas the primary antibody source. The incubation pH was 8.0. A monoclonalantibody against IgE served as the secondary antibody of theimmuno-reaction while goat anti-mouse imunoglobulin (IgG) gold conjugateserved as the tertiary antibody. As shown in FIG. 12, gold particles (5nm) were observed to be associated with microhelices, indicating thatthe microhelix is an allergenic protein.

To confirm that the microhelix or its polypeptide derivatives are foundin proteins extractable from latex gloves, aqueous latex glove eluatewas prepared in phosphate buffered saline and injected subcutaneouslyinto rabbits to raise polyclonal antibodies against the glove proteinmixture (Sunderasan and Yeang, 1994). When immuno-gold labelling of themicrohelix was carried out using these polyclonal antibodies, 10 nm goldparticles conjugated to goat anti-rabbit IgG were clearly seenassociated with the microhelices (FIG. 13), indicating that polypeptidecomponents of the microhelix protein complex occur in latex gloveeluate.

Hev b IV exists as an oligomer which consists of monomeric polypeptidesof approximate molecular weight 55 kDa (50, 55, 57 kDa) that aredisulfide linked into dimers of approximate molecular weight 105 kDa(100, 110, 115 kDa) as described above. Isoelectric focusing revealedHev b IV to be an acidic protein with pI in the region of pH 4.5. ItsN-terminal amino acid sequence has been determined as

Glu Leu Asp Glu Tyr Leu Phe Ser Phe Gly Asp Gly Leu Tyr Asp Ala (SEQ IDNO:5) 1               5                   10                  15 Gly AsnAla

FIG. 14 shows a Coomassie Blue-stained SDS-PAGE gel with B-serum loadedin lanes 1-4. The B-serum samples were either reduced or not reduced,and heated at 95 C for 3 minutes or unheated before loading. Acorresponding gel was electro-transferred to nitrocellulose membrane andthe Western blot was probed with polyclonal antibodies homotypic to Hevb IV. The results show that Hev b IV exists as a broad band betweenabout 50-57 kDa when the sample was reduced and heated (Lane 1).However, when the sample was heated but not reduced (Lane 3), Hev b IVis seen as a higher molecular weight band of about 105 kDa indicatingthat Hev b IV monomers (molecular weight 50-57 kDa) are disulfide-linkedto form 105 kDa dimers. Further, when the sample was not heated notreduced (Lane 4) the protein did not enter the gel giving only a veryweak reactive band at 105 kDa suggesting that the 105 kDa dimers formlarger oligomers which dissociate on heating.

The protein recovered in fractions A and B from the gel filtrationprocedure described above also contains a 50 to 57 kDa broad band whichexists as a 100 to 115 kDa dimer as shown in FIG. 15 where the top gelwas run under reducing conditions while the bottom gel was run undernon-reducing conditions to demonstrate the relationship between the 50to 57 kDa and the 100 to 115 kDa bands.

Although the microhelix has been described before, as mentioned above,the results presented here represent the first report of its beingimmunogenic and allergenic. The polypeptide fragments of Hev b IV, thatarise from protein denaturation or degradation, are described in detailin the present document.

The protein Hev b II was recovered in a different fraction and becausethe molecular weight is much smaller (34/35 and 36/37 kDa) than Hev bIV, both polypeptide chains were recovered in the same fraction with theCoomasie Blue stained SDS PAGE gel showing no other visible bands. Whenthis fraction was subjected to Western blot analysis afterelectrotransfer from an SDS-PAGE gel run under non-reducing conditions,it was clearly shown that the protein recognised by the monoclonalantibody USM/RB4 is also recognised by IgE from latex allergic patients.An example of such a reaction is shown in FIG. 10c where the top panelrepresents IgE binding to at least 4 bands in fraction 15 (middle track)and 2 bands in the B-serum control (left track). Isoelectric focusing ofHev b II revealed a single band at pI approximately 9.6. Hev b II couldbe electrophoresed on a cathodic native PAGE system. The proteinappeared as a single band by Coomassie Blue staining after theelectrophoresis at acidic pH according to the method of Reisfeld et al.(1962). A similar gel was incubated with laminarin (1.5 mg ml⁻¹) in 50mM sodium acetate buffer, pH 5.2, for 3 h at 37° C. The gel was thenplaced in a solution of 150 mM K₂HPO₄, pH 8.6, containing 0.05% anilineblue for 1 h (Cote et al., 1989). A stained band was observedcorresponding to that seen after Coomassie Blue staining, indicatingβ1,3 glucanase activity. An internal peptide fragment of Hev b II showedan amino acid sequence:

(SEQ ID NO:6) Phe Asp Glu Asn Asn Xaa Gln Pro Glu Val Glu1               5                   10

and another peptide fragment showed the sequence:

(SEQ ID NO:7) Arg Asn Ile His Asp Ala Ile Arg Ser Ala Gly Leu Gln1               5                   10

The former sequence showed 85.2% homology with the amino acid sequencefor endo-1,3 β-glucanase present in the tobacco plant and the tomatoplant.

A large amount of Hev b II in both molecular sizes can be obtained bydetergent extraction of lutoid membranes. This suggests that Hev b II isassociated with the lutoid membrane.

To further determine the importance of the proteins recognised byUSM/RB4 as human allergens, Western blotting using nitrocellulose stripscontaining Hev b II protein in a reaction with IgE from latex allergicpatients shows that 8 of 13 (61.5%) human blood plasma samples recogniseHev b II (FIG. 16). Purified Hev b II was used in this experiment andhence sensitivity of patients' IgE to it was greater in this instancethan in the experiment depicted in Table I.

Should large amounts of Hev b IV, Hev b II or Hev b III be required(e.g. for the commercial preparation of immunoassays, they can beprepared by the methods described above. Alternatively, the monoclonalantibodies USM/RC2, USM/RB3 and USM/RB4 or their equivalent antibodiescan be incorporated into “affinity chromatography” columns or othersolid phase matrices. By reacting latex C-serum, B-serum or other latexderived preparations with such solid phase matrices and eluting withappropriate buffers, the respective allergens can be recovered in highlypurified form.

The fact that Hev b IV and Hev b II are soluble in sodium chloride maybe exploited in procedures to leach or wash latex products to removeallergenic proteins. Hev b IV and Hev b II (and their subunits anddegradation products) are more effectively removed if a solution of salt(e.g. sodium chloride) or other solution with ionic strength greaterthan that of water is used in leaching or washing. An example of thiseffect is demonstrated in Table II which shows the extraction of totalproteins, total antigens (i.e. allergens and non-allergens) andallergenic proteins binding to USM/RB4 by water and by 0.35M sodiumchloride solution from a film of natural rubber latex. It is clear thatwhile sodium chloride solution removes total protein and total antigensmore effectively than water, the greater efficiency of sodium chlorideis very much more marked in the case of latex allergens binding toUSM/RB4 where only 4.5% of the extractable allergen is eluted in wateras compared to 59.5% of total protein and 77.7% of total antigenextractable in water as compared to 0.35M sodium chloride. Hence, theuse of 0.35M sodium chloride solution selectively increases theefficiency by which this particular latex allergen is extracted.

TABLE II EXTRACTION OF TOTAL PROTEINS, TOTAL ANTIGENS AND ALLERGENSBINDING TO USM/RB4 BY WATER AND 0.35 M SODIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION.ALLERGENS TOTAL BINDING TO PROTEINS TOTAL ANTIGENS RB4 (Arbitrary(ug/ml) (Arbitrary units) units) Eluted in water 113.8 47.3 0.6 (59.5%)(77.7%) (4.5%) Eluted in 0.35 M 191.3 60.9 13.4 sodium chloride

Antigens and allergens were assayed by a competitive enzyme-linkedimmunosorbant assay (ELISA). Polyclonal antibodies raised in rabbitsagainst latex gloves were used in the total antigen assay. Percentagesare calculated taking the values obtained by sodium chloride elution as100%.

EXAMPLE

This is an example of an assay according to the present invention inwhich monoclonal antibodies developed against specific allergenicproteins are employed to determine the level of those allergens inproducts (gloves) manufactured from latex.

As already mentioned, proteins eluted from commercial latex gloves havepreviously been used as the protein antigen component of immunoassaysfor the diagnosis of latex allergy or for the quantitation of latexallergens. A serious drawback of this approach is that different brandsof gloves show qualitative and quantitative differences in theirallergen composition, as can be seen from the findings presented in FIG.17 and Table III below. USM/RB3 and USM/RB4 are monoclonal antibodiesaccording to the present invention.

TABLE III ALLERGENS FOUND IN GLOVE SAMPLES DO NOT CORRELATE WITH TOTALPROTEIN CONCENTRATION. ANTIBODY TOTAL HOMO- / PROTEIN NEG TYPIC SAMPLE(mg/ml) USM/RB3 USM/RB4 CONT ANTISERA GLOVE 1 0.325 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00GLOVE 2 0.324 0.30 0.51 0.02 1.8 GLOVE 3 0.349 0.21 0.68 0.02 1.5 GLOVE4 0.143 0.20 0.08 0.02 1.00 GLOVE 5 0.284 0.15 0.80 0.05 1.26 GLOVE 60.261 0.12 0.18 0.02 1.83 GLOVE 7 0.212 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.62 GLOVE 80.177 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.77 GLOVE 9 0.244 0.13 0.23 0.02 0.72 B-SERUM0.024 6.39 >9 0.04 >9

REFERENCES

Alenius, H. (1994) Distribution of allergenic proteins between fractionsof natural rubber latex separated by ultracentrifugation. Paperpresented at the Workshop on Latex Protein Allergy, June 1994, KualaLumpur.

Archer, B. L., Barnard, D., Cockbain, E. G. Dickenson, P. B. andMcMullen, A. I. (1963) Structure, composition and biochemistry of Hevealatex. The Chemistry and Physics of Rubber-Like Substances . Bateman, L.Ed. Maclaren & Sons Ltd., 43.

Axelsson, J. G. K., Johansson, S. G. O. and Wrangsjo, K. (1987)IgE-mediated anaphalactoid reactions to rubber. Allergy, 42, 46.

Beezhold, D. H. (1993) Measurement of latex protein by chemical andimmunological methods. Paper presented at the Conf. on Latex proteinallergy: the present position. Amsterdam.

Chevallier, M. H. (1988) Genetic variability of Hevea brasiliensisgermplasm using isozyme markers. J. Nat. Rubb. Res., 3(1), 42.

Chrestin, H., Jacob, J. L. and d'Auzac, J. (1985) Biochemical basis forcessation of latex flow and occurrence of physiological bark dryness.Proc. Int. Rubb. Conf. 1985 Kuala Lumpur, 3, 20.

Cohn, W. E. (1984) Methods Enzymol., 106, 1.

Cote, F., Letaqrte, J., Grenier, J., Trudel, J. and Asselin, A. (1989)Detection of β1,3 glucanase activity after native polyacrylamide gelelectrophoresis: application to tobacco pathogenesis-related proteins.Electrophoresis, 10, 527.

Czuppon, A. B., Chen, Z., Rennert, S., Engelke, T., Meyer, H. E., Heber,M., Baur, X. (1993) The Rubber elongation factor of rubber trees (Heveabrasiliensis) is the major allergen in latex. J Allergy Clin. Immunol.92,690-7.

Gomez, J. B. and Moir, G. F. J. (1979) The Ultracytology of LatexVessels in Hevea brasiliensis. M.R.R.D.B. Monograph No.4, MalaysianRubber Research and Development Board, 37.

Gomez, J. B. and Tata, S. J. (1977) Further studies on the occurrenceand distribution of microhelices in clones of Hevea. J. Rubb. Res. Inst.Malaysia, 25(3) 120.

Gomez, J. B. and Yip, E. (1975) Microhelices in Hevea latex. J.Ultrastruct. Res., 52, 76.

Hsia, R. C. H. (1958) Oxygen absorption by Hevea brasiliensis latex.Trans. Instn. Rubb. Ind., 34, 267.

Kohler and Milstein (1975) Continuous cultures of fused cells secretingantibody of predefined specificity. Nature, 256, 495.

Kohler and Milstein (1976) Derivation of specific antibody-producingtissue culture and tumour lines by cell fusion. Eur. J Immunol., 6, 292.

Kurup, V. P., Kumar, A., Kelly, K. J. and Fink, J. N. (1993)Characterisation of a monoclonal antibody against latex proteinassociated with latex allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol., 92(5), 638.

Lagier, F., Vervloet, D., Lhermet, I., Poyen, D. and Charpin, D. (1992)Prevalence of latex allergy in operating room nurses. J. Allergy Clin.Immunol., 90, 319.

Levy, D. A. (1993) Diagnosis of allergy to latex proteins. Paperpresented at the Conf. on Latex protein allergy: the present position.Amsterdam.

Leynadier, F., Autegarden, J-E., Levy, D. A. (1993) Management ofpatients with latex protein allergy. Paper presented at the Conf. onLatex protein allergy: the present position. Amsterdam.

Leynadier, F., Pecquet, C. and Dry, J. (1989) Anaphalaxis to latex.Anaesthesia, 44, 547.

Marsh, D. G. (1987) The new International Union of ImmunologicalSocieties (IUIS) allergen nomenclature. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.,80(5), 637.

Marsh, D. G., Goodfriend, L., King, T. P., Lowenstein, H. andPlatts-Mills, T. A. E. (1986) Allergen nomenclature. Bull. WHO, 64, 767.

Moir, G. F. J. (1959) Ultracentrifugation and staining of Hevea latex.Nature, 184, 1626.

Nutter, A. F. (1979) Contact urticaria. Br. J. Derm.,101, 597.

Prematillake, S. P. and Yapa, P. A. J. (1985) A study ofcharacterization of Hevea clones by serum protein patterns. J. Rubb.Res. Inst. Sri Lanka, 63, 25.

Prematillake, S. P., Yapa, P. A. J. and Bamunuarachi (1985) Serumprotein patterns in healthy and brown bast affected trees of Hevea. J.Rubb. Res. Inst. Sri Lanka, 64, 7.

Reisfeld, R. A., Lewis, U. J. and Williams, D. E. (1962) DiskElectrophoresis of Basic Proteins and Peptides in Polyacrylamide Gels.Nature, London, 195, 281. Shamsul Bahri, A. R.; Samsidar Hamzah, HafsahMohd. Ghazali and Yeang, H. Y. (1993) Latex allergy studies: Location ofsoluble proteins in latex examination gloves. J. Nat. Rubb. Res., 8(4),299.

Slater, J. E. (1991) Latex antigens. Allergy and Clin. Immunol., 87(1),Pt.2, Abs. 516.

Subramaniam, A. (1992). Reduction of extractable protein content inlatex products. Proc. Int. Latex Conf.: Sensitivity to latex in medicaldevices., Baltimore, U.S.A.

Sunderasan, E. and Yeang, H. Y. (1994) Latex allergy studies: B-serumfrom the latex bottom fraction as a major source of immunogenic gloveproteins. J. Nat. Rubb. Res., 8(4), 293.

Tata, S. J. and Gomez, J. B. (1980) Isolation and characterisation ofmicrohelices from lutoids of Hevea latex. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia,28(2), 67.

Tupy, J. (1969) Stimulatory effects of 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acidand of 1-naphthylacetic acid on sucrose level, invertase activity andsucrose utilisation in the latex. Planta, 88, 144.

Turjanmaa, K., Laurila, K., Makinen-Kiljunen, S. and Reunala, T. (1988)Rubber contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis, 19, 362.

Turjanmaa, K., Reunala, T., Tuimala, R. and Karkkainen, T. (1984) SevereIgE-mediated allergy to surgical gloves. Allergy, 39, (Suppl. 2, Abs.35).

Walujono, K. and Suseno, P. A. (1973) Experiments with p.a.a.electrophoresis for Hevea clones identification. Paper presented atsymposium of the International Rubber Research and Development Board,Puncak, Indonesia.

Yeang, H. Y., Ghandimathi, H. and Paranjothy, K. (1977) Protein andenzyme variation in some Hevea cultivars. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia,25(1), 9.

Yeang, H. Y. and Paranjothy, K. (1982) Some primary determinants ofseasonal yield variation in clone RRIM 623. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia, 30(3), 131.

Yeang, H. Y. and Paranjothy, K. (1982a) Initial physiological changes inHevea latex and latex flow characteristics associated with intensivetapping. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia, 30(1), 31.

7 12 amino acids amino acid linear peptide 1 Val Ser Ser Tyr Leu Pro LeuLeu Pro Thr Glu Lys 1 5 10 10 amino acids amino acid linear peptide 2Gly Asp Leu Ser Thr Val Ser Arg Leu Lys 1 5 10 19 amino acids amino acidlinear peptide 3 Ile Val Leu Asp Val Ala Ser Ser Val Phe Asn Thr Arg LysGln Glu 1 5 10 15 Lys Gln Lys 12 amino acids amino acid linear peptide 4Val Thr Pro Val Tyr Tyr Leu Gly Thr Pro Thr Val 1 5 10 19 amino acidsamino acid linear peptide 5 Glu Leu Asp Glu Tyr Leu Phe Ser Phe Gly AspGly Leu Tyr Asp Ala 1 5 10 15 Gly Asn Ala 11 amino acids amino acidlinear peptide 6 Phe Asp Glu Asn Asn Xaa Gln Pro Glu Val Glu 1 5 10 13amino acids amino acid linear peptide 7 Arg Asn Ile His Asp Ala Ile ArgSer Ala Gly Leu Gln 1 5 10

What is claimed is:
 1. An allergenic protein from the latex or tissue of Hevea brasiliensis, being in purified form, designated Hev b IV, being oligomeric and consisting of three major species of monomeric polypeptides with molecular weights 50, 55 and 57 kDa that are disulfide-linked into dimers of approximate molecular weights 100, 110 and 115 kDa.
 2. An allergenic protein from the latex or tissue of Hevea brasiliensis, being in purified form, designated Hev b II and being composed of two polypeptide chains of molecular weights 34/35 kDa and 36/37 kDa.
 3. An allergenic protein from the latex or tissue of Hevea brasiliensis, being in purified form, designated Hev b III, having a molecular weight of 24 kDa. 